I don't DM 4th edition, but when I do

[TwinBahamut]

Im confused. the last item on my list was



Are you suggesting that there is something negative to a DM boosting items in dungeon to solve the fact that the party is now woefully low on items?

There are ways to put items in a dungeon without straining your sense of reality, or the party knowing thats what the DM did. Obviously with a dangerous monster there may be signifigant reward (D&D sort of works on that assumption right?)

I'm more aghast at the idea of a DM who would gleefully destroy a bunch of a party's items just to watch them "white like a bunch of babies" for a while. It is not like that rust monster sprung into being on its own, after all... Giving the items back doesn't undo the kind of maliciousness that action implies.

I think many of the arguments on this forum are between two groups: 1 group wants to run a perfectly balanced and fair board game and see what happens no rule bending allowed, the other wants to role play a story with their friends and a DM who is responsible for crafting a fun, memorable and epic adventure.

Not too demean either side, but its becoming hard to see how these two types of play can "unite" in a single edition.

That is a terrible rationalization of the divide, I think. The group that wants a perfectly balanced and fair game with no rule bending will also want to roleplay a fun story with their friends and have a DM who presents a rich and fun adventure. It is more a matter that one group considers the former aspect to be an essential part of the latter, while another group apparently does not.

That said, I see no way that the scenario you described, in which a DM sends a rust monster after a group of players just to watch them cry, that is compatible with having fun roleplaying through an epic story. If the DM actually cares about an epic story, then he should be invested in the story of the players, and should put great care and value in the character's items. Destroying all of that just for the sake of a very shallow way to infuse the game with "risk" and "danger" is not a sign of a DM who actually cares about roleplaying and epic adventure.

 

[billd91]

If the DM actually cares about an epic story, then he should be invested in the story of the players, and should put great care and value in the character's items. Destroying all of that just for the sake of a very shallow way to infuse the game with "risk" and "danger" is not a sign of a DM who actually cares about roleplaying and epic adventure.

That may be a little less stark than hanez's characterization, I think it still runs a bit afoul of being a value-loaded statement. It's perfectly possible to be invested in epic story telling, focused on the characters, while still including the level of adversity that things like death, rust monsters, and save or die effects bring to the game. Dealing with such adversity can lead in epic directions.

 

[hanez]

I'm more aghast at the idea of a DM who would gleefully destroy a bunch of a party's items just to watch them "white like a bunch of babies" for a while. It is not like that rust monster sprung into being on its own, after all... Giving the items back doesn't undo the kind of maliciousness that action implies.

...

That said, I see no way that the scenario you described, in which a DM sends a rust monster after a group of players just to watch them cry, that is compatible with having fun roleplaying through an epic story. If the DM actually cares about an epic story, then he should be invested in the story of the players, and should put great care and value in the character's items. Destroying all of that just for the sake of a very shallow way to infuse the game with "risk" and "danger" is not a sign of a DM who actually cares about roleplaying and epic adventure.

I never advocated sending monsters the players couldn't handle. In fact I specifically started my list of options to the DM with "not pitting the party up against the monster until they are ready". You picked one of my last options, without mentioning the first.

I am in no way advocating a hard core adventure where players constantly lose what they just gained. In fact players in my campaigns rarely die, and I've only used a rust monster once in 10+ years of campaigning. What I am advocating is NOT removing dangerous and central features from monsters when there is a perfectly capable adjucator (the DM) at the table who is charged to keep the danger AND the fun at the table.

At one table (not mine) perhaps item loss, and risk is central to the story, another group may have different conventions and expectations. BOTH groups have a DM who can choose to add a dangerous monster into an adventure or leave that monster out. Why do we need to remove/modify dangerous types of monsters out of the official rules, when a DM can simply choose not to use them if he so wishes. What exactly is the point of a rust monster that doesn't destroy items, how different and memorable is it from another monster? If people don't want challenging and dangerous monsters like a rust monster, leave it for MM2 or something. Just dont take its DEFINING and MOST INTERESTING feature away and call it a rust monster.

 

[Jawsh]

I look at it this way: if a player gets emotional about an imaginary magical sword, then somewhere along the line the DM has done right.

Be more afraid when the players don't care about losing their imaginary stuff.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I will admit to a certain amount of malicious glee when using rust monsters - not in destroying the party's items, but in their reactions to the possibility of losing their items. The panic is heartwarming.

Very seldom does the rust monster actually get to destroy much, the players will go to great (and sometimes hilarious) lengths to prevent it from happening.

The happy *Chirp!* and the eager galumphing of the beast is enough to send the fighter running and the wizard boldly stepping to the fore to protect his friends while the druid changes shape to something that can eat rust monsters.

The Auld Grump, they're just so cute!

 

[Remathilis]

I look at it this way: if a player gets emotional about an imaginary magical sword, then somewhere along the line the DM has done right.

Be more afraid when the players don't care about losing their imaginary stuff.

Yes and no.

Do I feel bad about losing my magical crap? Yeah. I also feel bad when I lose a round of Words with Friends. I don't like to lose, but I learned long ago the cost of winning is occasionally losing.

I worry about those who take things a bit too personally, and I've seen my fair share of that!

 

[Remathilis]

The happy *Chirp!* and the eager galumphing of the beast is enough to send the fighter running and the wizard boldly stepping to the fore to protect his friends while the druid changes shape to something that can eat rust monsters.

I like Rust Monster like I like golems, oozes and spectral undead; sometimes its fun to shut down a class for a combat. The rust monster shuts down the fighter for a fight, while the rogue (using the mages staff) beats it senseless. The golem keeps the mage in the back while the fighter shines, and the undead gives clerics face time while rogues start looking for that vial of holy water they bought for sessions back...

Of course, like anything it can be used too much and thus negate its use (all undead being immune to SA meant rogues got hosed a whole lot) but I think there is definitely a place for odd corner cases that make the game fun (bulettes avoiding dwarves, clerics immune to ghostly aging, elves immune to ghoul paralysis, raksasha's immune all but the most power spells and weapons etc). I'd hate to see them all go (like they mostly did in 4e) but I also don't want every monster over 5th level/CR having DR, SR, or immunities to shut down classes.

 

[TwinBahamut]

That may be a little less stark than hanez's characterization, I think it still runs a bit afoul of being a value-loaded statement. It's perfectly possible to be invested in epic story telling, focused on the characters, while still including the level of adversity that things like death, rust monsters, and save or die effects bring to the game. Dealing with such adversity can lead in epic directions.

I'm not arguing against the existence of rust monsters, you know. Just some potential uses for them and mechanical implementations of them. And I'd never argue against the value of things like the risk of death in the game (save or die is a totally different issue...). Adversity is part of the game. There is just a big difference between fun adversity and the DM thinking that he has the right to abuse the players just because he has a position of authority within the game rules.

 

[SKyOdin]

What I don't get is why people think rust monsters have to destroy equipment completely in order to be scary. I mean, the rust monsters in NetHack don't even instant-destroy equipment, and NetHack is the reigning king of "your character will lose all of his possessions and die an ignoble death at the slightest mistake" gameplay. NetHack rust monsters just rust your metal weapons and armor, a condition that degrades their effectiveness that can be repaired at the cost of some resources. And yet, that is still plenty enough to convince players to take be nervous around them and take necessary precautions, which primarily consists of always carrying around a non-metallic weapon.

It is perfectly fine to have monsters that can threaten a player in unusual or unconventional ways, but it is still possible to do so while having some reasonable restraint.

...

I still need to get around to starting that ascension run with my NetHack character. I've been hesitating on that for too long.

 

[Greg K]

I agree, but if the loss of a 5% bonus to hit/damage is enough to force your barbarian to has a sad, perhaps they need to go...

magic items or the player?